PAKISTANI FOREIGN MINISTER ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO
ADDRESSES
THE UN SECURITY,COUNCIL ON 15 DECEMBER 1971
We have met here today at a grave moment in the
history of my country and l would request the
Council kindly to bear with me and to hear the
truth, the bitter truth. I know the United Nations;
l know the Security Council I have attended their
sessions before. The time has come when, as far as
Pakistan is concerned, we shall have to speak the
truth whether members of the Council like it or not.
We were hoping that the Security Council, mindful of
its responsibilities for the maintenance of world
peace and justice, would act according to principles
and bring an end to a naked, brutal aggression
against my
people. I came here for this reason. I was needed by
the people of Pakistan, and when I was leaving
Pakistan. I was in two minds whether: to go to the
Security Council to represent the cause: of my
country, to represent the cause of a people that had
been subjected to aggression, or to remain with my
people, by their side, while they were being
subjected to attack and violence. However, I felt
that it was imperative for me to come here and seek
justice from the Security Council. But l must say,
whether the members like it or not, that the
Security Council has denied my country that justice.
From the moment I arrived we have been subjected to
dilatory tactics.
It will be recalled that when the Indian Foreign
Minister spoke and I spoke after him, I said that
filibustering was taking place. That was my
immediate observation. The Security Council, I am
afraid, has excelled; in the art of filibustering,
not only on substance but also on procedural
matters. With some cynicism, I watched yesterday a
full hour of the Security Council's time wasted on
whether the members of the Council would be ready to
meet at 9:30 a.m. or that bed and breakfast required
that they should meet at 11:00 a.m.
The representative of Somalia referred to the
population of East Pakistan as 56 million, but later
on he corrected himself to say that the population
of Bengal—of Muslim Bengal—was 76 million. lf he had
waited for a few more days he need not have
corrected himself because millions are dying, and it
would have come to 56 million if the Council had
kept on filibustering and discussing whether it
should meet today or tomorrow or the day after
tomorrow-whether the lines of communication between
New York and Moscow and Peking and other capitals
would permit the members to obtain new instructions.
Thus, we could have gone on and on. That is why I
requested you, Mr. President, to convene a meeting
of the Security Council immediately and I am
thankful to you for having convened this meeting,
because precious time is being lost. My countrymen,
my people, are dying. So I think I can facilitate
your efforts if I speak now. Perhaps this will be my
last speech in the Security Council. So please bear
with me because - I have some home truths to tell
the Security Council. The world must know. My people
must know. I have not come here to accept abject
surrender. If the Security Council wants me to be a
party to the legalization of abject surrender, then
I say that under no circumstances shall it be so.
Yesterday my eleven year old son telephoned me from
Karachi and said “Do not come back with a document
of surrender. We do not want to see you back in
Pakistan if you do that." I will not take back a
document of
surrender from the Security Council. I will not be a
party to the legalization of aggression.”
The Security Council has failed miserably,
shamefully. “The Charter of the United Nations,”
“the San Francisco Conference,” "international peace
and justice"-—these are the- words we heard in our
youth, and we were inspired by the concept of the
United Nations maintaining international peace and
justice and security. President Woodrow Wilson said
that he fought the First World War to end wars for
all time. The League of Nations came into being, and
then the United Nations after it. What has the
United Nations done? I know of the farce and the
fraud of the United Nations. They come here and say,
"Excellence, Excellence, comment allez-vous?" and
all that "A very good speech—you have spoken very
well, tresbien." We have heard all these things. The
United Nations resembles those fashion houses which
hide ugly realities by draping ungainly figures in
alluring apparel. The concealment of realities is
common to both but the ugly realities cannot remain
hidden. You do not need a Secretary General. You
need a chief executioner.
Let us face the stark truth. I have got no stakes
left for the moment. That is why I am speaking the
truth from my heart. For four days we have been
deliberating here. For four days the Security
Council has procrastinated. Why? Because the object
was for Dacca to fall. That was the object. It was
quite clear to me from the beginning. All right, so
what if Dacca falls? Cities and countries have
fallen before. They have come under foreign
occupation. China was under foreign occupation for
years. Other countries have been under foreign
occupation. France was under foreign occupation.
Western Europe was under foreign occupation. So what
if Dacca falls? So what if the whole of East
Pakistan falls? So what if the whole of West
Pakistan falls? So what if our state is obliterated?
We will build a new Pakistani. We will build a
better Pakistan. We will build a greater Pakistan.
The Security Council has acted short-sightedly by
acquiescing in these dilatory tactics. You have
reached a point when we shall say," Do what you
like." If this point had not been reached we could
have made a
commitment. We could have said, "All right, we are
prepared to do some things." Now why should we? You
want us to be silenced by guns. Why should we say
that we shal agree to anything? Now you decide what
you like. Your decision will not be binding on us.
You can decide what you like. If you had left us a
margin of hope, we might have been a party to some
settlement.
But the Indians are so short-sighted. Mr. President,
you referred to the "distinguished" Foreign Minister
of India. What may I ask is so “distinguished” about
a policy of aggression he is trying to justify? How
is he distinguished when his hands are full of
blood, when his heart is full of venom? But you know
they do not have vision.
The partition of India in 1947 took place because
they did not have vision. Now also they are lacking
in vision. They talk about their ancient
civilization and the mystique of India and all that.
But they do not have vision at all. If I had been in
his place, I would have acted differently. I
extended a hand of friendship to him the other day.
He should have seen what I meant. I am not talking
as puppet. I am talking as the authentic leader of
the people of West Pakistan who elected me at the
polls in a more impressive victory than the victory
that Mujibur Rahman received in East Pakistan, and
he should have taken cognizance of that. But he did
not take cognizance of it. We could have opened a
new page, a new chapter in our relations.
As I said, if the French and the Germans can come to
terms, why cannot India and Pakistan come to terms?
If the Turks and the Greeks can still talk sensibly
as civilized people over Cyprus, why cannot Indias
and Pakistan do likewise? If the Soviet Union and
the United States can open a new page in their
history, if China and the United States can open a
new page in their history, why can we not usher a
new era in our relations? We could have done so. But
as it was said about the 1967 Arab-Israel war, the
military victory of Israel made it more difficult
for Israel and the Arabs to reach a settlement. If
you want to subjugate Pakistan militarily, you will
find it more difficult to bring peace. I say that
the choice for us is either to accept living in the
same subcontinent and co-operating for peace and
progress, or to be implacable enemies of each other
forever.
The Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union
does not like my reference to the Roman Empire. I do
not know what objection he has to it, unless he sees
some similarity between his empire and the Roman
Empire. I do not really see why he had any objection
to that. But I shall again refer to the Roman
Empire, and I hope that the Permanent Representative
of the Soviet Union will have no objection to it
because we want to have good relations with the
Soviet Union and we want to open a new chapter with
the Soviet Union because we are neighbours. I go
back to the Roman Empire and I say what Cato said to
the Romans, "Carthage must be destroyed." lf India
thinks that it is going to subjugate Pakistan,
Eastern Pakistan as well as Western Pakistan-because
we are one people, we are one state- then we shall
say, “Carthage must be destroyed." We shall tell our
children and they will tell their children that
Carthage must be destroyed.
So please, Mr. President and members of the Security
Council, realize the implications. The Pakistani
nation is a brave nation. One of the greatest
British generals said that the best infantry
fighters in the world are the Pakistanis. We will
fight. We will fight for a thousand years, if it
comes to that. So do not go by momentary military
victories. Stalingrad was over whelmed. Leningrad
was besieged for a thousand days. People who want to
be free and who want to maintain their personality
will fight and will continue to fight for
principles.
We were told about the realities; to accept the
realities. What are the realities? Realities keep
changing, the Permanent Representative of the Soviet
Union knows that once the reality was that the Nazis
were outside the gates of Moscow, but you fought
valiantly, bravely, and the world saluted the Soviet
Union for having resisted the realities that were
sought to be imposed on it. The reality was that
China was under the occupation of Japan, that
Manchuria was taken - half of China. That was the
reality. Since the Opium War, China has seen
reality. The reality for France was that it was
under occupation. But there were great men like
President de Gaulle who left France and fought from
across the seas. Ethiopia was under Fascist
domination. But the Ethiopians fought. The Emperor
of Ethiopia left his country and sought asylum in
Britain.Ethiopia is free today. The realities that
matter are those which are not temporary phenomena A
which are rooted in historic principles. The
principle is that Pakistan is an independent,
sovereign state which came into being because or the
volition of its people. That is the basic reality
which has existed for 24 years. Pakistan would not
have faced dismemberment like this if it had not
been attacked by another country. This is not an
internal movement. We have been subjected to attack
by a militarily powerful neighbour,. Who says that
the new reality arose out of free will? Had there
been the exercise of free will, India would not have
attacked Pakistan. If India talks about the will of
the people of East Pakistan and claims that it had
to attack Pakistan in order to impose the will of
the people of East Pakistan, then what has it done
about Kashmir? East Pakistan is an integral part of
Pakistan. Kashmir is a disputed territory. Why does
India then not permit it to exercise its will?
But yesterday I saw how the Security Council was
pandering to India. Even the great powers are
pandering to India, saying to us, "Do not
misunderstand," "Would you please let us know" and
"Would you please answer the following questions; I
am not insisting on those questions, but if you do
not mind." India is intoxicated today with its
military successes.
I told the Indian Permanent Representative in 1967
that we wanted good relations between the two
countries—but based on principles, based on justice,
based, on equity, not based on exploitation and
domination, because such relations cannot be
lasting. What we want is a lasting, a permanent
solution. I do not say this just today; I said that
in 1967 to their Permanent Representative who the
High Commissioner of India to Pakistan was then. I
said that to the Foreign Minister of India when we
were negotiating on Kashmir, "Let us settle this
problem on the basis of equity and justice, so that
we can live as good neighbours." And I add today: we
can still live as good neighbours, as friends. Do
not wipe out that possibility by military conquest
and military power.
This has been the worst form of aggression, of naked
aggression. Even Poland was not invaded by Germany
in this fashion. Even in that case there were some
pretenses, some excuses that were made. Here the
excuse was, "We have refugees, so we must invade
another country." We said, "We are prepared to take
those refugees back." lf we had said, "We are not
prepared to take them back," then you could have
said, "Well, you will be sunk; India's population
rises by 13 million a year. The number of refugees
was alleged to be 9 million, 10 million. According
to our estimate they were 5 million. But that is not
important figures are not important. The point is
that we were prepared to take them back. If India's
population can grow by 13 million a year, then with
all the aid and assistance that India was getting
for the refugees, it could have held on for a short
period till Pakistan had civilian government to
negotiate the return of the refugees. I told the
United States Ambassador in Pakistan that once a
civilian government came into power in Pakistan, was
prepared to go to the refugee camps myself to talk
to them. But India pre-empted it all because the
refugee problem was used as a pretext to dismember
my country. The refugee problem was used as a
pretext, an ugly, crude pretext, a shameful pretext
to invade my country, to invade East Pakistan.
The great powers will forgive me. L have `addressed
them in this moment of anguish, and they should
understand; The great powers or the super
powers---the super-duper-powers, the
razzling-dazzling powers-the super powers have
imposed their super will for the moment. But I am
thankful to the people and the Government of the
United States among the super powers, for the
position it has taken. The people of the United
States, to some extent have been misled by massive
Indian propaganda. Because we had no paraphernalia
of popular administration and government in
Pakistan, there was a political vacuum. The Indians
took advantage of that political vacuum and they
spread out fast to project their point of view. As a
result, American public opinion and public opinion
in Great Britain and France and other countries was
influenced. Unfortunately, nothing said of the
massacres that took place between 1 March and 25
March. No doubt there were mistakes on our side. I
said yesterday that mistakes were made, and the
Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union said
that I had admitted mistakes. Well, that is not a
sign of weakness, is it? Do we not all make
mistakes? Are India and the? Soviet Union the only
two countries that have never made mistakes? I have
made mistakes personally. But mistakes do not mean
that my country must be destroyed, that my country
must be dismembered. That is not the consequence of
mistakes of government. Which government does not
make mistakes? But if some government has made a
mistake, does it follow that the country itself must
be dismembered, obliterated? Is that going to be the
conclusion of the Security Council if it legalizes
Indian aggression on the soil of Pakistan?
So you will see now; this is not the end of the
road, this is the beginning of the road; this is not
the end of the chapter, a new chapter has begun a
new page has been written in international
relations. This is gunboat diplomacy in its worst
form. In a sense, it makes the Hitlerite aggression
pale into insignificance because Hitlerite
aggression was not accepted by the world. If the
world is going to endorse his aggression, it will
mean a new and most unfortunate chapter in
international relations. A new chapter may have
begun in India and Pakistan; but please do not start
a new dreadful chapter in international relations.
For us, it is a hand-to-hand, day-to-day,
minute-to-minute fight. But do not do that to the
rest of the world. Please do not permit this kind of
naked, shameful barbaric aggression to hold sway. In
the old days great warriors swept over the world
—Changiz Khan, Subutai Khan, Alexander, Caesar,
coming down to the great Napoleon. But this is
worse, this is much worse than all that was done by
the great conquerors of the world in the past. If
the United Nations becomes a party to this kind of
conquest, it will be much worse than all that has
been done in the past. You will be turning the
medium-sized and the small countries into the
harlots of the world. You cannot do that. It is
against civilized concepts: it is against all the
rules of civilization and of international morality
and justice.
The United States Government was criticized for
supporting the position of Pakistan. What crime has
the United States Government committed? It has taken
a position identical to that of the whole world on
the India-Pakistan conflict. That position was
supported by 105 countries - it was 104 officially,
but it was really 105 because one representative did
not press the right button. That was the voice of
the world. It was an international referendum. You
talk about the election of 1970. Well, I am proud of
the election of 1970 because my party emerged as the
strongest party in West Pakistan. But here was an
international poll and India flouted it. With such
an attitude towards international opinion, how can
India pretend to be sensitive to a national election
in another country? The same India that refuses to
hold a referendum in Kashmir?
The Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union
talked about realities. Mr. Permanent Representative
of the Soviet Union looks at this reality. I know
that you are the representative of a great country.
You behave like one. The way you throw out your
chest, the way you thump the table. You do not talk
like Comrade Malik; you talk like Czar Malik. I see
you are smiling. Well, I am not because my heart is
bleeding. We want to be friends, but this is not the
way to be friends when my country is decimated,
sought to be destroyed, wiped out.
Why should China and the United States be criticized
when the whole world is for Pakistan? You know that
we have won a great political victory. We might have
suffered a military defeat, but a political victory
is more important than a military defeat because
political victory is permanent while defeat is
temporary. The United States Government has acted
according to its great traditions by supporting
Pakistan, and I will go to the people of the United
States before I return home and tell them the truth.
The United States has stood by the traditions of
Jefferson, Madison. Hamilton, right down to
Roosevelt and Wilson by supporting Pakistan as an
independent state, its national integrity and its
national unity. What wrong and crime has the United
States committed? Why is the Indian delegation so
annoyed with the United States? The Indian
delegation is annoyed with U.S.—can you imagine
that? If it had not been for the massive food
assistance that the United States gave to India,
India would have had starvation; its millions would
have died. What hope will India give to the people
of East Pakistan? What picture of hope is it going
to give when its own people in Western Bengal sleep
in the streets, where there is terrible poverty,
where there is terrible injustice and exploitation,
when the parliamentary rule in West Bengal has been
superseded by presidential rule? Is India going to
do better for East Pakistan, for Muslim Bengal, than
it has done for West Bengal? Thousands of West
Bengali people sleep in the streets of Calcutta. The
people of West Bengal are the poorest. India goes
hat in hand to the United States for six million
tons of food. If they are going to impose
presidential-rule in West Bengal, in their Bengal,
how can they do any better in our Bengal? They will
not. And time will show that they will not.
So the United States has taken a correct and moral
position. Thomas Jefferson once said, "I have sworn
eternal hostility against any form of tyranny
practiced over the mind of man". This is a vast form
of tyranny practiced over the mind of man and over
the body of man. So the United States has adhered to
its tradition. And if some misguided Senators were
here, some young, misguided Senators who have been
overtaken by Indian propaganda—and if the Permanent
Representative of the United States were not from
Texas—I would have told those young Senators that I
was setting up the headquarters for a republic of
Texas and making the former President of the United
States, Lyndon Johnson, the chief of that republic,
in order to spread the cult of Bangladesh
everywhere. Why can Texas not be free? Let there be
a republic of Texas. We did not buy Bengal as Alaska
was bought by the United States. We did not pay
money to get our territory. We did not pay dollars
to acquire territory. The people of the United
States should appreciate the position taken by their
Government.
Muslim Bengal was a part of Pakistan of its free
will, not through money. We did not buy it as Alaska
was purchased. Why do the people of the United
States not see that? And we are beholden and
thankful to the great People's Republic of China. We
shall always remain thankful for the position it has
taken. It has taken a position based on principles
of justice. And I thank the Third World for having
supported a just cause, a right cause.
And now in the Security Council we have been
frustrated by a veto. Let us build a monument to the
veto, a big monument to the veto. Let us build a
monument to the impotence and incapacity of the
Security Council and the General Assembly. As you
sow, so shall you reap? Remember that Biblical
saying. Today, it is Pakistan. We are your guinea
pigs today. But there will be other guinea pigs and
you will see what happens. You will see how the
chain of events unfolds itself. You want us to lick
the dust. We are not going to lick the dust.
Britain and France have abstained from voting in
order to play a role. I said the other day, with all
due respect to those two great powers, that they
have really exhausted their position in trying to
play a role because now the only role they can play
is to accept a shameless fait accompli. Britain and
France abstained, and that abstention has cost us
dearly. Gallic logic and Anglo-Saxon experience,
whatever it is, have cost us dearly. If Britain and
France had put their powerful weight behind the
international community rather than sitting on the
fence, the issue might have been different. There is
no such animal as a neutral animal. You take
positions. In that respect we admire the Soviet
Union; it took a position, a wrong position, but it
took a position. You have to take a position on
these matters. You have to be either on the side of
justice or on the side of injustice; you have to be
either on the side of the aggressor or of the
victim. There is no third road. It is a black and
white situation in these matters; there is no grey
involved. You are either for right or you are for
wrong; you are either for justice or for injustice;
you are either for aggression or for the victim. If
the United Kingdom and France had earlier put their
full weight behind the verdict of the international
community, I think that we would not have reached
this position. But Great Britain and France want to
come back into the subcontinent as Clive and Duplex,
in a different role, the role of peacemakers. They
want a foot here and they want a foot there. I know
that British interests in East Pakistan required
this kind of opportunistic role because in East
Pakistan they have their tea estates. They want the
jute of East Pakistan. So that is why they sat on
the fence. And I am sorry at France's position
because with France we had developed very good
relations, extremely good relations. But they took
this position. And now, today, neither Britain nor
France can play a role because their resolution has
been overtaken by events. There is a lot of goodwill
for France in Pakistan, and they neither will nor
get the same goodwill in East Pakistan because in
East Pakistan already the clock is now moving in
another direction. Everyday that the Indian Army of
occupation stays there, it will be a grim reminder
for Muslim Bengal that they are under Hindu
occupation, and you will see the result of it. You
will see how it will turn out. Let them stay—why
not? Let them stay. Let them swagger around. If they
want to take East Pakistan, let them stay as an army
of occupation. They are an army of occupation; how
can they be called liberators? They will stay, and
they will see how the clock is going to move in a
different direction.
Finally, I am not a rat. I have never ratted in my
life. I have faced assassination attempts, I have
faced imprisonments. I have always confronted
crises. Today I am not ratting, but I am leaving
your Security Council. I find it disgraceful to my
person and to my country to remain here a moment
longer than is necessary. I am not boycotting.
Impose any decision, have a treaty worse than the
Treaty of Versailles, legalize aggression, legalize
occupation, legalize everything that has been
illegal up to 15 December 1971. I will not be a
party to it. We will fight; we will go back and
fight. My country beckons me. Why should I waste my
time here in the Security Council? I will not be
party to the ignominious surrender of a part of my
country. You can take your Security Council. Here
you are. (Ripping papers) I am going.
